A biased look at psychology in the world

January 21, 2013

Learning to be Funny

A friend once asked me what
comedy was. That floored me. What is comedy? I don`t know. Does anybody?
Can you define it? All I know is that I learned how to get laughs, and
that`s all I know about it. You have to learn what people will laugh at, then proceed accordingly. Stan Laurel

Is there a psychology of humour? And is it even possible to develop a scientific understanding
of what is “funny”? Much like Stan Laurel’s famous quote above,
humour is often seen as purely intuitive with comics “feeling out” their
audience to see what will make them laugh. Those brave academics who
dared study humour serious are typically accused of missing the point
completely. According to E.B. White in his 1941 book,
“humor can be dissected as a frog can, but the thing dies in the
process and the innards are discouraging to any but the pure scientific
mind.” Essays on the psychology of humour tend to be long and serious
with no trace of the humour they are supposedly explaining. You’re
certainly not likely to see Stephen Colbert or Jerry Seinfeld consulting
then for helpful tips on entertaining people (then again, who
knows?).

Bridging the gap between comedy and psychology takes a very special sort of psychologist. One much like Mitch Earlywine,
in fact. Not only is he an associate professor of psychology at the
State University of New York at Albany with specialties in addictions
and drug use, but he is also a successful stand-up comedian which makes
him a unique sort of ambassador between serious science and the
not-so-serious world of comedy. In his recent book, Humour 101,
released in 2011 by Springer Publishing Company, Earlywine carefully
counterbalances existing research with his own experiences as a stand-up
comedian.